First member of Member of Bearings Anonymous

They have been working on this machine for years. There have been
other people working on very similar machines as well so when they
say "NOBODY HAS has ever done anything like it,” their stretching the
truth somewhat.

I can understand not wanting to get sued if someone flys it and
possibly gets hurt. The FAA and other government entities really love
to keep their fingers on stuff like this. However, an agreement could
be signed holding the company not liable in any way shape or form
just as easy as to sign a form saying you can't fly it.

BTW - you can buy plans on how to build a less complex version
of this same principle of flight.

Predator Gasser SE/231 X 2 Century Helicopters

Oh I think we have seen this before and oh yeah no one has done this before.
BS
Will Solo fly? Depends on your definition of fly. I can get a rock to fly. Will it fly for more than a few minutes. I doubt it. Will it be safe to fly is a much better question. Is the V-22 safe? I would argue it isn't right now.

If it was easy the V-22 would be flying over my office right now!
Look closely at the flight envelops and how they change over time. All these guys start out with claims of flying like 400 MPH for 1200 miles and getting 30 MPG at 20,000 feet. Then the envelops start shrinking as they get into flight testing until they resemble the Bell Rocket belt (the famous 30 second vtol)

Look closely at http://208.56.150.96/wheel/wheel.htm and you will see a whole lot of really well-funded smart people fail at this same endeavor.
-Back to Solo
If you look at how Solo actually works you will be scare spit-less. Fixed Pitch fans! That's right. Just like your Cricket/LMH110. Every "real" helicopter that has tried the fixed pitch approach has failed! Usually killing or injuring the test pilot. Engines don't respond fast enough to make fine altitude adjustments. And they think they are going to get 8,000+ feet. Maybe the 2cycle Rotax can turn 25,000 RPM but I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong though. I am building a full-size VTOL also. But more like Igor Sikorsky you won't hear any claims of performance from me until it fly's. Oh yeah and you won't see the full-size bird at all (prototype or otherwise) until I get the 1:8 scale model flying. SoloTrek and Moller are both putting all their eggs in the full size bird!

So I think it is great to have people focussed on innovation. I just wouldn't send either of these designs any money.

Hiller YROE-1 Rotorcycle

Hundreds of United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps helicopters operated during the Korean War, yet the enemy continued to capture American aircrews downed in hostile territory. Time was the critical factor. Any delay to the rescue helicopter, whether from weather, mechanical problems, or enemy action, meant almost certain capture. Near the end of the war, Marine Corps leaders saw a potential breakthrough in helping aircrews evade the enemy and return to friendly territory. Since World War II, the captains of the helicopter industry measured the progress of rotorcraft development in leaps and bounds. In particular, the trend toward smaller and lighter helicopters was remarkable. In 1953, the U. S. Navy, on behalf of the U. S. Marine Corps, announced a competition to design and build a one-man helicopter. The aircraft had to be man-portable, small and compact in storage but quick to assemble by one person. Aircrews would carry this tiny aircraft with them on every mission and if forced down, fly it to friendly territory. Marine Corps leaders also hoped the aircraft might give individual infantrymen air mobility for special tactical missions.

Thirty firms competed for the contract, but the Navy selected only two, the Hiller ---Aircraft Company and the Gyrodyne Company of America. The Marine's judged Gyrodyne's YRON-1 design (with twin, coaxial, main rotor) impractical for one-man operation. Later, the Navy adopted this concept as the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter (DASH) and several of these rotorcraft operated from destroyers with decks too small to mount helipads.

Hiller won the contract and began to develop an innovative flying machine designated the XROE-1. The firm also appended the name 'Rotorcycle' to the new aircraft. Since Stanley Hiller flew his first helicopter, the XH-44 Hiller-Copter (see NASM collection), in 1944, the young inventor from California had earned a reputation for unique and innovative approaches to vertical flight. Hiller's experimental research division had developed and flown the ramjet-powered HOE-1 and the Model 1031 Flying Platform (see NASM collection for both aircraft).

The prototype Rotorcycle weighed a scant 132 kg (290 lb). Fully packed and ready for loading aboard a Navy or Marine aircraft, the XROE-1 was just 70 cm (27 in) in diameter. The unassembled aircraft fit easily inside a streamlined pod. An airplane could carry one or more of these pods on wing racks and drop them by parachute to grounded aircrews. One man could assemble the Rotorcycle, ready-to-fly, in five minutes without special tools. Most major components unfolded on hinges and locked into place, anchored by preinstalled locking pins. Hiller packaged the tailboom separately but it was easy to snap into position. At the end of the tailboom, a small tail rotor turned to counteract torque generated by the single main rotor. Hiller made the helicopter as easy to fly as possible and he added his patented "Rotormatic" gyro-stabilization system to the main rotor. Control was slightly unconventional because Hiller suspended the cyclic stick over the pilot's head to simplify the control linkages and to make folding the aircraft easier. Otherwise, the controls resembled those of most other contemporary helicopters.

The Rotorcycle was so stable that Hiller expected a non-pilot to fly it after only 8 hours of instruction. For its diminutive size, the helicopter had excellent performance except in range. The fuel tank held 9.1 liters (2.4 gals) of gasoline, enough to fly 64 km (40 miles) in calm weather at a cruise speed of 84 kph (52 mph). A person could bolt floats onto the standard, tripod-strut landing gear for operations on smooth water. The center-of-gravity range was extremely limited, prohibiting a lightweight pilot from flying without a small bucket filled with ballast and suspended from the front landing gear strut to safely balance the Rotorcycle.

Hiller constructed a non-flying prototype for structural tests and one flight-test model. The XROE-1 first flew in November 1956. The Rotorcycle performed well and impressed Marine Corps officers who ordered five YROE-1 rotorcraft for evaluation. Hiller did not have the capacity to build these aircraft because the Hiller UH-12/H-23 scout utility helicopter program had consumed all manufacturing capacity. The British manufacturer, Saunders-Roe, built the five Marine Corps Rotorcycles under license to Hiller, and built an additional five Rotorcycles for sale overseas. The firm finished all ten by 1961.

The YROE-1 performed well during tests but those evaluating the helicopter discovered some problems. A downed pilot trying to evade capture at the controls of the slow, noisy Rotorcycle was extremely vulnerable unless he could make his escape under cover of darkness, haze, or other weather conditions. To fly safely when night or bad weather obscured the earth's horizon, a pilot had to rely on navigation and attitude instruments such as the compass, altimeter, airspeed indicator, turn-and-bank, and other gauges. Yet, Hiller made no provisions on the YROE-1 for mounting these instruments; the space around the Rotorcycle pilot was open to the air. The Navy had to prohibit flying at night, or when haze or low clouds restricted visibility, making the Rotorcycle much less effective. The debut of turbine-powered helicopters in the late 1950s, and improved search and rescue techniques, sealed the Rotorcycle's fate and the Navy cancelled the program.

A number of Rotorcycles still survive and a private owner continues to fly one example, in good weather. Hiller donated the second YROE-1 to the Smithsonian Institution after the test program ended in 1961.

Thanks, Flyboy

I heard a rumor from my brother-in-law a few minutes ago. He is more current in the California aeronautics buzz than I am. He said he heard they had some kind of accident with one of the prototypes and the company was going under because of the accident and some major milestone they missed. I couldn't find any details on the accident.
Anyone know what happened?

The Future of Nitro is ELECTRIC

There was a group from Japan at Sun 'n Fun last year that flew a personal helicopter. It had 2 counter-rotating sets of blades powered by small two stoke engines. The operator was suspended below able to manuver the handle bars in any direction similar to a hang glider. I think it had a twist throttle. They had a camera crew with them doing interviews, maybe something is on the web.